“Section 375.”… A well-made courtroom drama that careens provocatively between #MeToo and #MenToo

This is really Akshaye Khanna’s movie. He appears to have lost some weight. He looks taut and wiry, and you’d use the same words to describe his performance.

Spoilers ahead…

Anjali Dangle (Meera Chopra) comes from a Marathi-speaking family, and from a very middle-class neighbourhood. She’s a junior costume designer, and she’s working in a film directed by Rohan Khurana (Rahul Bhat). You might say he’s from a Hindi- or Punjabi-speaking family, but even at home, the spoken language – except with the domestic help – is English. And his house is one of those apartments right out of Architecture Digest. The power equations are laid out right at the beginning of Ajay Bahl’s Section 375 (also known as Section 375: Marzi Ya Zabardasti). As the director, as an upper-class English-speaker, Rahul is – culturally, societally, perceptually – way above Anjali. But is he, as she claims, a rapist? That’s the question at the heart of this narrative that careens provocatively between #MeToo and #MenToo.

The story is set in 2008, and it’s a competently staged courtroom drama. There’s all that what really happened? suspense, gradually revealed to us. There’s the spirited sparring – tainted evidence! unreliable witnesses! – between Rohan’s lawyer Tarun Saluja (Akshaye Khanna) and public prosecutor Hiral Gandhi (Richa Chadda, chomping down on a meaty role with relish). Those who felt annoyed about Pink because it had a “male saviour” can breathe easy now; it’s a woman defending a woman, plus she is famous for her work on women’s rights. Tarun is a veteran, a big shot who handles big-money clients. Hiral worked under him, and this is her first big case. But the times we are in make Section 375 more than just another David vs Goliath tale.

Rohan claims he is innocent of rape, but even if Anjali is lying, we know something happened and it wasn’t easy for her. Take the physical examination after the incident is reported. With Rohan, we just see a couple of shots of him without his shirt on. Anjali is fully clothed throughout the examination, but it appears that she’s the one being stripped naked. What was the position? Assault ke baad urine pass kiya, stool pass kiya? Penis se penetration hua tha? Just listening to this line of questioning makes you queasy, and we want to be on her side just because she endured this humiliating examination. A few quick talking-head shots establish that we aren’t alone. The media court has decided Rohan is guilty. The people’s court has decided Rohan is guilty. The audience court in my theatre, too. When bail was denied for Rohan, quite a few people clapped.

You see why Tarun’s wife (Sandhya Mridul) advises him that “is mahaul mein” it’s not right for him to defend Rohan. Someone could say “is mahaul mein” it’s not right for the director to bring out such a film, either. But Section 375 is a surprisingly equitable film. There are two judges, a man (Kishor Kadam) and a woman (Kruttika Desai). They won’t let Hiral play the victim card, but they punish Tarun, too, for his Perry Mason tricks. (His license is revoked.) Even the win doesn’t feel like a win. It also feels like something has been lost. This is the first movie that voices this question: Can any man accused of rape really walk free? Isn’t his life (as he knew it) over right then, right there?Section 375 is going to infuriate a lot of people. It’s also going to make a lot of people think.

Rahul Bhat has a reptilian coolness that makes it easy to believe Rohan is not a good person, but when you see him behind bars, the actor brings out shades of vulnerability that make you wonder, But what if…! But this is really Akshaye Khanna’s movie. He appears to have lost some weight. He looks taut and wiry, and you’d use the same words to describe his performance. It’s a hell of a role (Manish Gupta is the screenwriter), and it resonated with me a lot because I believe in a lot of the things Tarun believes in – say, justice is abstract, whereas law is about provable facts. I found myself watching Section 375 with a knotty stomach, because something told me the case wasn’t as easy as it sounded. I wanted justice to be done to Anjali and to Rohan. Now, that’s a feeling I’ve rarely experienced while watching a courtroom drama.

This has to be the most Baradwajian film ever made. From outside, it’s stoic and dispassionate but you don’t know what’s going on inside. It’s deeply patriotic but prefers not to express it — just like a lover who wouldn’t openly express his love to his woman. It’s conflicted and confused. It tries to toughen you up; it makes you wonder; it makes you search for clarity, but you end up with more questions than answers.

Glad you reviewed this film, I was actually planning to ask you to review this film in another thread but then forgot about it. This is one of those rare hindi films that raises questions and does not pass judgement.

Such a shame that it went unnoticed. It is one of those rare films that successfully deceived me as an audience. Really appreciate Bahl for taking the most difficult route here. I can’t think of many films, that put forth its points through the film’s least likeable character. It is through Akshay Khanna’s character that we learn many things. The pre-conceived notion with which the cops treat a rape case, the harsh truth on how people close to the rape victim sometimes treat her, the other side of social media activism. And wasn’t it refreshing to see the lawyers bond freely with each other, outside the court.They even agree on some stuff. I feel the Rashomon-like narrative, was handled with great precision here. When you see the real side of the story, you are truly shaken up. I think it is only in the Anjali- Rohan relation that Bahl misses the mark. It never touches you as it should. The courtroom portions were truly authetic as far as a mainstream film is concerned , and has really set the bar high for the films to follow. It topples a lot of cliches too. It is extremely quiet, subdued and subtle for a film of this genre. Maybe the film is a bit ahead of its time. Hopefully it will find its viewers in the coming years.

I really, really liked the movie, it is nuanced and exciting to watch, and really brings out the gray areas, but :

1) Like the law says, in a relationship where the male is in a superior position professionally , you can never tell from the outside how much of the apparently “consensual” was genuinely so, especially when the girl’s background is impoverished and she needs the job and the contacts. And it’s unfair and unethical for two reasons : it gives the lady unfair perks. It denies others the same perks. So it’s an all-round unfair situation for everyone concerned. I did not know until I watched this that there was a clear cut law that puts the onus of the proof of proving there was no rape on the accused in such a situation. I’m glad this movie highlights this : maybe that will give predators pause.

2) I thought there was a tinge of mansplaining in Tarun’s interactions with Hiral.

Even though I’ve felt exasperated reading reports of women filing for rape because they were promised marriage and the guy backed out later, rape has so much stigma in India that people misusing rape laws for revenge must surely be a miniscule percentage of the total accusations.

I wish Anu or Rahini had commented here. I would have loved to hear their views. This is a very discussable movie. It is streaming on Prime, btw.

Saw this well-made, gripping movie on Prime. I didn’t watch this on theatres because of Film Companion Sucharita Tyagi’s opening line of her review which revealed the key plot twist.

This is how some critics pull down a well made film since they don’t like its agenda/message.

SPOILERS AHEAD

Also, that line doesn’t make much sense since Pink movie was also made by men.

My only grouse with this movie is that Richa Chadda’s character didn’t come across as intelligent as Akshay Khanna. While he discovers many things from the evidence, her counter-moves, I felt, were not strong/intelligent enough. I think it would have been better if an actress more popular than Akshay had been casted in that role. That way, the audience wouldn’t have the ‘hero bias’. Also, I felt it would have been better if the screenplay was written such that Richa discovers what had actually happened, instead of us hearing it from the 2 persons involved.

It is interesting that for a movie which shows how even judges are pressurised by the ‘Maahaul’, the writers also seem to be constrained by it. The girl deliberately uses her mobile phone so as to catch the attention of the director. She manages to be around him, alone, at odd hours, without much reason. She first says that she was not aware that he is married (his house and attitude suggests that he was very successful, so it wouldn’t have been difficult to know/enquire) but she later says that she is his wife’s facebook friend. He offers to make her costume designer of his next film, but she is not satisfied in getting promoted to a job which still involves a lot of hard work and is not THAT lucrative. Her aim instead is to become his wife and she thought it was easy since he is childless. But, when this ‘smart’, ‘shortcut to wealth/success’ plan goes awry, she is unable to accept the terms of the outcome, is frustrated, and hence plans revenge. I think all this is hinted but not highlighted, because of the ‘Maahaul’. Instead, the ‘abuse, but not rape’ message is highlighted.

My only grouse with this movie is that Richa Chadda’s character didn’t come across as intelligent as Akshay Khanna. While he discovers many things from the evidence, her counter-moves, I felt, were not strong/intelligent enough. I think it would have been better if an actress more popular than Akshay had been casted in that role. That way, the audience wouldn’t have the ‘hero bias’. Also, I felt it would have been better if the screenplay was written such that Richa discovers what had actually happened, instead of us hearing it from the 2 persons involved

Absolutely agree. Because what I did not like, in an otherwise nuanced, gender balanced movie was the mild glorification of the male lawyer and the mild putting down of the lady lawyer who was characterized as naive and inexperienced, and talked down to by the male lawyer. Avoiding that would have made a much better movie.

She manages to be around him, alone, at odd hours, without much reason. She first says that she was not aware that he is married (his house and attitude suggests that he was very successful, so it wouldn’t have been difficult to know/enquire) but she later says that she is his wife’s facebook friend. He offers to make her costume designer of his next film, but she is not satisfied in getting promoted to a job which still involves a lot of hard work and is not THAT lucrative. Her aim instead is to become his wife and she thought it was easy since he is childless. But, when this ‘smart’, ‘shortcut to wealth/success’ plan goes awry, she is unable to accept the terms of the outcome, is frustrated, and hence plans revenge. I think all this is hinted but not highlighted, because of the ‘Maahaul’. Instead, the ‘abuse, but not rape’ message is highlighted*

You articulate exactly some of the things I had a problem with, in this movie. They have put most of the blame of the relationship on her shoulders, while it is usually quite the reverse in a power imbalanced predatory relationship. She was the one who showed interest in him first, she was the one who wanted more from the relationship, and had more expectations from him. They have characterised him as innocent as is possible for someone who did this act can be. There is a definite male bias there.

tonks:the mild glorification of the male lawyer and the mild putting down of the lady lawyer who was characterized as naive and inexperienced

I did not see it this way at all. This is a classic David/Goliath construct, where the “weaker” one wins at the end. The man may be talking down to her, but he loses.

This is what characterisation is, and we should separate this from political correctness. He is a flawed, cocky man. That is all there is to it. And she is bound to be naive, as this is her first big case, after all. That is all there is to it.

What matters is that she wins and he loses — according to law. But not according to justice.

Since men talking down to women who are as qualified as them is common in real life, and most movie dynamics show the male to be proven ultimately correct, I just felt it would have been a better movie if the genders of the two lawyer characters had been reversed. The same way I felt Pink would have been a better movie if Amitabh’s role had been characterized by a lady protagonist, instead of clinging to regressive male saviour tropes.

David does win technically against Goliath but it is David who is shown to be morally unambiguously ultimately in the wrong. And David is female.

“They have put most of the blame of the relationship on her shoulders, while it is usually quite the reverse in a power imbalanced predatory relationship…They have characterised him as innocent as is possible for someone who did this act can be. There is a definite male bias there.”

Firstly, there would be many cases where perverted men try to exploit the vulnerabilities of their subordinate women and coerce them to have sex. I myself know the case of a man, who had a 18 year old daughter, making a 23 year old woman employee uncomfortable through his behavior, including suggestions to having drinks with her and her team. But, it is rare for men to understand, write and realistically direct such pressures and problems faced by women. That is why I always wish that we have more female writers and directors.

Having said that, are we going to say that it is impossible for the events to have taken place exactly in the way as shown in this movie? I would say no, it is possible and there would be such incidents too. A similar ‘gold digger’ portrayal was shown in ‘Made in Heaven’ too. Now, just because 3 women were involved in writing and directing that series and only men were involved in this, are we going to accuse them of male bias?

Since the cinema industry is dominated by men, we are going to get far more stories from their POVs and highlighting their concerns. The remedy for this is not to suppress their voices but to create a more enabling environment for women to air their concerns too.

“This is a classic David/Goliath construct, where the “weaker” one wins at the end. The man may be talking down to her, but he loses.”

I thought a movie like Jolly LLB is an example of a legal David/Goliath construct, where the powerful accused indulges in witness intimidation/planting, evidence tampering/falsification, bribing etc. In this movie no one threatens Richa and despite being powerful, the accused is not shown to indulge in any foul play. In fact, the circumstances/atmosphere of the case is shown as being against the accused. So, I don’t see any reason to perceive the lady as ‘weaker’, unless one buys the argument of women being the ‘weaker’ sex, which I don’t.

“And she is bound to be naive, as this is her first big case, after all.”

Even her naivete is a bit unconvincing. It may be her first big case, but she was his junior for quite some time and must be aware of his tricks/approach. Thus, her naivete is shown as a result of her ‘idealistic’ personality/bias and not due to lack of legal experience.

I agree with Isai – the David/Golaith example seems misplaced here.The point of this film is that all the power lies with the accuser and the onus is on the accused to prove his innocence upending the traditional socio-economic power hierarchy. Like Tonks and Isai I too feel the characterization of Hiral was weak. She had the power of the state apparatus behind her and yet all of the investigation and the twists in the case came from Tarun. Even if Hiral was relatively new to the game, she’s trained under the vaunted Tarun, she ought to know his strategy well. She’s touted as the next big thing and yet she seems caught by surprise every single time Tarun springs a trap. Even though Akshaye Khanna was very good, I’d agree that a woman in the role would’ve served the film better. Someone like Madhuri Dixit for example would’ve brought star power and presence to the role. At least we’d have been spared Tarun’s incessant mansplaining! 😉

Ultimately all the appearance of equity seemed disingenuous. The film’s sympathies seem to lie with the accused – not that he was faultless or a model citizen but that the goal seems to be to show how the law makes it easy for accusers to twist it for unethical ends. So of course Anjali not content with trading sexual favors for a career boost wants to become Rohan’s wife and is his stalker. Small mercy that we don’t get a rabbit boiling scene ala Fatal Attraction. 😛 The stalker narrative undercuts some of the legitimate points the film makes such as the power of social media to try and convict an accused in the court of public opinion or that flipping the tenet of innocent until proven guilty can have dangerous consequences. It would’ve been much more effective to have foregone the entire stalker take on Anjali and left the ending open ended – i.e. not have Anjali confess to Hiral. After all it was Tarun’s job to create doubt and fight for his client. He spun a theory around why Anjali took the stairs and as he admitted there were no cameras and hence no proof. Leaving it to the audience to figure out who was guilty would have made things much more even handed and far more impactful.

I just watched this tonight and (as I do quite often) reread BR’s review as well as the comments. I must say I’m surprised at the number of people who seem to be reading/interpreting some parts of the film as being male biased. To me, the primary point seemed to be that the law being upheld is not always the same thing as justice being done. And the ambiguity that can often exist between the two things. The genders of the lawyers seemed secondary to me?

I’d consider it mansplaining if Tarun and Hiral were colleagues. But they are not. Their relationship is of a mentor-mentee. Tarun is speaking from that point of view. He still thinks himself as a mentor and she believes it too. This is further demonstrated when she feels guilty of the justice not being done. If it were any other lawyer, she might have gloated/she might have not, but with Tarun she tells him that justice wasn’t served.

From what I could gather from Hiral’s character, if it were any other lawyer, she would have asked him to STFU and try to win the case. If it were any other lawyer she would have felt guilty about having convicted the man on wrong charges, but would have enough pride not to disclose it to the defendant’s counsel.

Also, I view the confession as the director’s way of letting the court of people (us, audience) know that they (the people in the film) were wrong to strong-arm the legal system to wrongfully convict a man. It is a slap on our face if anything else.

The judge sees the protestants 3 times before giving the judgement (this is shown in slow motion to let us know that THIS is where the fate of a man is decided instead of logic and reasoning). It is clear that he lets the court of people strong-arm him into pronouncing a judgement that appeased the protestant section of people.

I don’t think people in the comments section understand “mansplaining”, I think they heard it used.

Akshay Khanna’s character is cocky and arrogant. The audience is not supposed to admire him. Him being cocky isn’t mansplaining.

Also, the whole backlash to Pink is silly. Just as dumb as when people talked about Article 15 as promoting a “Brahmin savior”.

That’s the funny thing. Great movies like this and Pink and Article 15 get made and the self-appointed “woke” Internet crowd puts them down for reasons they invent to get offended. And then we wonder why producers seem to prefer funding remakes and the next in the Housefull/Dabangg/Mindless Movie series.